Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 146 posts

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#41

Post by flangola7 »

xcdzvyn wrote: post #14
bugglebeetle wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We as a population need to be exposed to misinformation to build up immunity against it. We tried this in the 1930s in Europe and it didn’t seem to go very well. See also it’s lasting legacy in the current Italian prime minister, Marine Le Pen’s popularity in France, and AfD’s electoral successes in Germany.

Am I correct in my understanding that your comment is equating Nazi Germany and current popular right-wing politicians?

Quacks like a duck, etc.

NSDAP were in power for over a decade before the first concentration camp was ever built. Their rhetoric in the 30s was not as direct and violent as their later actions, that doesn't mean they weren't still Nazis.

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#42

Post by cjbprime »

flangola7 wrote: post #33
cmcaleer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a gambit to try to secure OAI's moat. It failed, and while competitors are catching up (still a while to go yet), he put a target on OAI's back.

This conspiracy theory is myopic. Altman has been cognizant[1][2] of the very-not-scifi danger of machine intelligence since before OpenAI was even founded. I believe he has dangerous levels of hubris but I don't see him being profit motivated. From his statements in the past and his regrets today[3] of bringing the current tech into existence, I'm confident his motivator is simply the desire to not die. >WHY YOU SHO…

Lots of retrospectively-good predictions in there, but this was the one I undervalued the extent of:

> We also have a bad habit of changing the definition of machine intelligence when a program gets really good to claim that the problem wasn’t really that hard in the first place

We've done this so much recently that I'm now seeing rewritten definitions of "real" intelligence that most humans do not meet.

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#43

Post by biofunsf »

flangola7 wrote: post #38
biofunsf wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the bottom of the ChatGPT prompt it always says: " ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. " So... is this just a case of user error? Or maybe the FTC needs to require a larger font size or just better disclosure? Mostly joking, but not entirely since I do think it's too small. Here's a proposal: https://i.imgur.com/IGON20r.png

The person being slandered never agreed to that disclaimer. If I manufacture and sell a car with a disclaimer "sometimes the brakes fail" and it runs over and paralyzes someone, the injured person and the judge are not going to care ten cents about whatever disclaimer the purchaser signed. If anything it will be used as evidence that the manufacturer knew they were selling a dangerous faulty product.

Well unlike the brakes situation, the ChatGPT lies are non-physically harmful misinformation and they're only sent directly to the user who presumably should be aware of the ChatGPT limitations. If I share ChatGPT lies as truth, that seems no different than me just sharing lies I made up. And it seems like in this case no one even believed the ChatGPT lies. I'm sympathetic because I'm sure it's incredibly hurtful seeing those specific lies, but no one was actually convinced.

We all already treat the internet at large as a source of "usually correct but not always" information, and people just need to take the ChatGPT disclaimer to heart and not treat it like some oracle. I imagine articles like these will fade over time as society finds lies coming from the "makes-up-lies-sometimes-machine" (ChatGPT) as boring and as common place as the many websites full of lies we already have.

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#44

Post by lolinder »

nubinetwork wrote: post #40

[flagged]

Posting links to threads that have comments can be quite helpful, but half of those didn't get noticed at all and have zero comments, so it feels more like you're trying to make a point rather than help people find related conversations.

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#45

Post by nubinetwork »

lolinder wrote: post #44
nubinetwork wrote: post #40

[flagged]

Posting links to threads that have comments can be quite helpful, but half of those didn't get noticed at all and have zero comments, so it feels more like you're trying to make a point rather than help people find related conversations.

[flagged]

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#46

Post by guy98238710 »

andrewstuart wrote: post #7

Sam Altman himself sat in front of the top levels of government and freaked them out by telling them his company was putting in place the groundwork to possibly end humanity. A really strange thing to do, I remain puzzled as to why any CEO would stir up the government like this. Having panicked regulators with science fiction, I hope he's not surprised when they take action.

Marketing. OpenAI needs to create illusion that their chatbot is more than just gradual evolution of past models that still needs a lot of work.

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#47

Post by lolinder »

nubinetwork wrote: post #45
lolinder wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Posting links to threads that have comments can be quite helpful, but half of those didn't get noticed at all and have zero comments, so it feels more like you're trying to make a point rather than help people find related conversations.

[flagged]

It's not against the guidelines to post something that has been previously posted (a small number of reposts are okay if it has yet to generate significant attention), and it is frequently the case that a topic doesn't catch on until the 3rd or 4th submission. You just came to the thread that did take off and are trying to say that it never should have been submitted because there were a whole bunch of duds that happened to get here first.

If you don't want to participate in the discussion that started here in this thread, feel free to find another thread—there's no shortage.

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#49

Post by nubinetwork »

lolinder wrote: post #47
nubinetwork wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's not against the guidelines to post something that has been previously posted (a small number of reposts are okay if it has yet to generate significant attention), and it is frequently the case that a topic doesn't catch on until the 3rd or 4th submission. You just came to the thread that did take off and are trying to say that it never should have been submitted because there were a whole bunch of duds that happ…

[flagged]

Re: FTC investigating ChatGPT over potential consumer harm

#50

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

biofunsf wrote: post #20
cmcaleer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a gambit to try to secure OAI's moat. It failed, and while competitors are catching up (still a while to go yet), he put a target on OAI's back.

Why not both? I think true AGI super intelligence (a lot smarter than us) does have the potential to destroy humanity, and as the current leader, Open AI seems closest to achieving that. Of course superintelligence might be far away or just unachievable, but we don't know that. And I agree Altman's statement also builds OAI's moat, but that doesn't make his statement false.

But isn’t it closer in the same way that I’m closer to Japan than my dog who is sitting 1 meter to the east of me is? We are still both 10,000 km away
Post reply on HN